Agencies still requesting SC/DV

[Peter Loew]

http://jobview.monster.co.uk/GetJob....mc_n=MKT000351

I still see agencies advertising explicitly for security cleared people...

[TheBigYinJames]

I had one of these this morning (I ahve had BC+ in the past, but that doesn't carry between employers). Is there some sort of law which says they can't ask any more?

[Badger]

I've had around 10 calls from different agencies for the same SC cleared position, which has apparently been open since Feb.

The end client has to understand that shortage and be more flexible, maybe write some SC cleared terms into the contract? They may then be able to actually fill their open positions, contractors get some good experience in those environments, seems like it would be a "win - win" situation to me.

But then I'm just a badger.

[malvolio]

The Cabinet Office rules got changed last year, after some serious (and quite tricky) lobbying by the PCG. As things stand now, you must not refuse an application on the grounds of the role needing clearance, if the clearance can be obtained within the duration of the contract. For that purpose, they use the SLAs for the clearance procedures which, for example, mean SC will come through in 30 days (yeah right - contractors don't even put get on to the pile of applications for a month or more). Hence, if you haven't got SC and the job lasts longer than 30 days, there's no reason you can't apply and be taken on.

Two problems: there are no penalties or supervisory authorities to impose those rules if they are breached nor any right of appeal, and the prime contractors are cheerfully ignoring them anyway. End result is 90% of contractors are debarred from 40% of the available work, and the Ministries are failing to recruit the staff they need (and arguably a direct result of that and the subsequent recycling of the same old people is why so many HMG programmes fail so dismally).

[TheBigYinJames]

The Cabinet Office rules got changed last year, after some serious (and quite tricky) lobbying by the PCG.

Interesting, so I could really say yes to [name and shame] ButlerCVS [name and shame] even though I know I don't have SC.

Having worked in SC environments under BC+, I know what you mean about "recycling the same old people"

[malvolio]

Not only could byut should. There are processes in paklce for handliong uncleared staf, after all. It's only the agencies, on behalf of the PFI contractors, who are cuasing the problems.

One caveat. Some roles - sysadmin, DBA, etc. - where informed supervision cannot readily be given are outside the rules, but these are rare.

If you're really interested, the guidance can be found at http://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php?...wnload&gid=294

[KevinS]

Not only could byut should. There are processes in paklce for handliong uncleared staf, after all. It's only the agencies, on behalf of the PFI contractors, who are cuasing the problems.

Are you fingers taped together this morning??

[brianbetter]

SC / DV cleared roles

I recruit for a major user of SC and DV cleared staff. My client very often comes to me asking for contractors but they will only look at DV or SC candidates because they have not left themselves time to clear somebody. Without SC or DV clearance, you will be unable to do your job. Yes, you can get on the site but you will have to escorted everywhere you go, including the toilet. Also, you will not get access to any computer systems or information needed in order to perform your role properly.

As an agency, we have no choice but to look for cleared people only as it is the client's wishes. I have told many of my clients that this is bad practice and that by lack of forward planning, they are dipping into the same pool of contractors time and time again and are paying a premium for a clearance which is not any sort of qualification or skill, rather the rules of supply and demand means that the supply far outstrips demand and they are paying through the nose to fill roles that could succesfully be filled by non cleared contractors, if we only got time and notice to do this!

[brianbetter]

correction

I mean demand far outstrips supply!

[malvolio]

I recruit for a major user of SC and DV cleared staff. My client very often comes to me asking for contractors but they will only look at DV or SC candidates because they have not left themselves time to clear somebody. Without SC or DV clearance, you will be unable to do your job. Yes, you can get on the site but you will have to escorted everywhere you go, including the toilet. Also, you will not get access to any computer systems or information needed in order to perform your role properly.

Sorry but that's rubbish. On that basis nobody would ever be able to get any role that requires clearance. Ignore what your clients are telling you, the reality is:

The project sponsor or a delegated authority responsible to him is permitted to grant access to any cleared material to uncleared staff provided (a) such access is supervised, (b) informed oversight can be provided and (c) they have assessed the security risks inherent in doing so. The escort duties are a pain, but not exactly arduous - you soon get used to taking five blokes at a time to the gents.

Clearly DV is an issue if they absolutely have to have unsupervised sight of material classified above Secret: for most roles that is not actually a problem and you can use SC as an interim. There are also some places - Thames House, for instance (but not most of GCHQ) - where DV is a necessity to get in through the door. But how many times have you seen the clearance level dropped in order to fill a key role?

So in practice, if you take me on to your site, as someone who has held SC fairly recently but which has lapsed, you could make a reasonable assessment that I'm not that much of a threat. Clearly if I fail to get clearance, then I'm off site immediately. The same rules apply to anyone who has a reasonable history of living and working in the UK.

Truth is your clients can't be a*sed to provide the tiny amount of effort required to manage uncleared staff (and which will have been costed as a line item in their original tender, incidentally). It's nothing to do with planning, it's all about ignorance.